The City of Chattanooga, TN, Did Not Always Administer Its ESG Program in Accordance With HUD’s Requirements
We audited the City of Chattanooga’s Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) program. We selected the City for review in accordance with our annual audit plan. Our audit objective was to determine whether the City administered its ESG program in accordance with HUD’s requirements.
September 28, 2017
The City of Memphis, TN, Did Not Have Effective Controls To Administer Its Housing and Rehabilitation Program Activities
We audited the City of Memphis’ Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program-funded Housing and Rehabilitation Program (HARP) as part of the activities in our 2013 fiscal year annual audit plan and based on a referral from the Office of Inspector General’s Office of Investigation. Our audit objective was to determine whether the City used its CDBG and HOME funds for eligible activities and compli
December 29, 2013
Mountain CAP of WV, Inc., Buckhannon, WV, Did Not Administer Its Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program in Accordance With Applicable Recovery Act and HUD Requirements
We audited Mountain CAP of WV, Inc.’s administration of its Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program funds. We selected Mountain CAP for audit because of a complaint alleging that controls over its disbursements were weak.
March 15, 2012
The State of Montana Generally Used Its CDBG-R Funds in Compliance With Requirements but Improperly Negotiated and Serviced Loans
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General, reviewed the State of Montana’s Community Development Block Grant-Recovery (CDBG-R) program, based on HUD’s concern with the State directly loaning CDBG-R funds to entities and because of our focus on the administration of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds.
September 26, 2011
The City of Memphis, TN, Did Not Ensure Compliance With All Requirements for Its Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing and Community Development Block Grant-Recovery Programs
HUD OIG audited the City of Memphis’ administration of its Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) and Community Development Block Grant-Recovery (CDBG-R) funds received under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We selected the City for audit because it received more than $3.3 million in HPRP funds and more than $2.1 million in CDBG-R funds, the most for any Tennessee city.
August 26, 2011
The Nashville, TN, Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency Generally Complied With Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2 Requirements
We reviewed the Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency’s (Agency) Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2 (NSP2). We selected the Agency for review because it received, in a consortium established with The Housing Fund, Urban Housing Solutions, and Woodbine Community Organization, a nearly $30.5 million NSP2 grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Agency was the only NSP2 grant recipient in Tennessee.
April 06, 2011
The West Virginia Housing Development Fund, Charleston, WV, Generally Administered Its Tax Credit Assistance Program Funded Under the Recovery Act in Accordance With Applicable Requirements
We audited the West Virginia Housing Development Fund’s (Fund) Tax Credit Assistance Program (Program) funds awarded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) due to a complaint from the Recovery and Transparency Board. We also audited the Fund’s Program because it was the only housing finance agency across the Nation that had not spent any of its Program funds.
March 21, 2011
The City of Chattanooga, TN, Needs To Strengthen Controls for Tracking Obligations and Reporting for Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program
HUD OIG reviewed the City of Chattanooga’s (City) Neighborhood Stabilization Program (program). We selected the City for review based on its low percentage of obligations and the approaching September 6, 2010, deadline for obligating funds. Our objective was to determine whether the City administered its program in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rules and regulations.
September 03, 2010